August 13, 2013

Most users of antidepressant drugs not really depressed, just faking it to take the easy way out

Here is an NYT article covering a new study which shows that most people who are diagnosed with depression -- and who therefore go on to regularly take antidepressant drugs -- do not meet the standards set by the psychiatrist's diagnostic handbook, the DSM.

Well, sure, given that such a large portion of the population is hooked on drugs, it must be that the "condition" they're treating is being way over-diagnosed, and that most folks are just looking for an excuse to take an easy way out of their problems, i.e. by numbing their brain into a state where it feels neither joy nor sadness, where they're just drifting through daily life.

As a reminder, this whole mainstreaming of drugs phenomenon is a note-for-note repeat of the unwholesome mid-century zeitgeist, part of the broader web of dysfunction in cocooning times.

Now, as then, it is primarily driven by surging demand from the public, not doctors luring in people who aren't on the same wavelength. Big Pharma would love to get everybody hooked, and to advertise in order to recruit unsuspecting customers. But after the age of Geritol ended in the 1960s, drug companies couldn't advertise on TV. Not until the '90s, that is, when consumers began wanting to see ads that would tell them what they wanted to hear -- that the normal signs of discomfort that the viewer had were reason enough to go see a doctor and ultimately hook their brain up to a Prozac faucet, whose dials they could adjust according to their want, rather than try to cope with real life like a normal person.

“It’s not only that physicians are prescribing more, the population is demanding more,” Dr. Mojtabai said. “Feelings of sadness, the stresses of daily life and relationship problems can all cause feelings of upset or sadness that may be passing and not last long. But Americans have become more and more willing to use medication to address them.”

Hopefully this study on antidepressants will echo an article from earlier this year, when there were the first signs of a growing openness to talk about the mainstreaming of Adderall and similar drugs. They're like the antidepressants in being stabilizing drugs -- meant to pick up the lethargic or tranquilize the anxious.

In contrast, the drugs of rising-crime times are destabilizing drugs that take your mind into an out-of-the-ordinary state, like pot or coke. Their destabilizing properties cause them to be viewed and taken more cautiously, where folks are apprehensive to start taking them, and then only occasionally or "recreationally," while regular users are well aware of the dangers, and will only make up the smallest fraction of the population (the most risk-taking). The stabilizing properties of drugs that dominate in falling-crime times cause them to be far more widely adopted -- hey, what could possibly go wrong with trying to nudge the brain toward a more normal state?

Unlike users of destabilizing drugs, users of stabilizing drugs ignore or dismiss the possibility of adverse, long-lasting side-effects. In their view, there can be no such thing as bad side-effects to something that makes the brain more normal. Also unlike users of destabilizing drugs, they don't seek to immediately counteract the drugs' bad side-effects -- they don't try to "sober up" when they're about to drive home, run into their parents, etc.

All this stems from their rationalization of taking drugs as a return to a more normal state of mind. In reality, of course, the human mind is not meant to constantly be in a feel-nothing state. That's abnormal, like someone who got a lobotomy. Properly seeing how unusual the mental state is of those who use "stabilizing" drugs, it comes as no surprise that there are all those downsides -- particularly for those who aren't experiencing major clinical depression, but are just looking for the anti-social way out of life's troubles, rather than discuss their problems with others, receive support and care, feel better, and move on with life.

In my experience, the mainstreaming of mind-altering drugs during falling-crime times is the piece of the larger pattern that no one wants to hear or talk about, which is why I continue to cover it and get on my soapbox about it, even though psychiatry is not one of my main interests. Nothing more glaringly characterizes the glib and dismissive attitude, the weakening of moral fiber, and the general degradation, of falling-crime times such as the Victorian era, the mid-century, and the Millennial era, as writing off all objections to the widespread zombie-fication of the population through regular use of psychoactive substances, and even seeking to prevent such objections as though they were Luddite obstacles to the future of trouble-free progress.

15 comments:

Well, sure, given that such a large portion of the population is hooked on drugs, it must be that the "condition" they're treating is being way over-diagnosed, and that most folks are just looking for an excuse to take an easy way out of their problems, i.e. by numbing their brain into a state where it feels neither joy nor sadness, where they're just drifting through daily life.

I don't think most folks are looking for an easy way out of their problems.

I think it's more likely the shift in diet over the past century - namely the fats/oils that are consumed.

The S.A.D. is far too rich in Omega 6 fatty acids and not enough Omega 3's. This imbalance leads to all sorts of mental and physical problems...namely depression, anxiety and a host of other illness like Parkinson's, Alzheimers, dementia, bi-polar, etc. They don't know what's wrong with them, so they go to the Doctor, and the Doctor is trained to whip out the prescription pad to medicate the symptoms of the nutrient deficiencies.

It's all about the FAT in the Food supply.

Coincidentally, I am in the midst of writing my latest post on this very topic when I saw your post here come up on my reader.

Back in 2005-6, when I reached 25 years of age, I started questioning basically everything that I had been taught to believe since I could cognitively function: 1) study hard, go to a good college, enter the workforce and begin saving for retirement; 2) treat a beautiful girl really well, shower her with love, and she'll reciprocate in kind; and 3) friends and family will always be there for you.

All three of the aforementioned points proved false to me at about age 25, causing severe cognitive dissonance. This ultimately led me into mental depression, which I wouldn't wish on anybody.

I worked together with a therapist, who tried to make me realize that I don't have to be happy with all the shit spoon-fed to me via family, friends, TV, newspapers, etc. I wasn't really listening at first (Ego was way too strong at that point), so she also recommended a psychiatrist who might help with the severe depression.

The psychiatrist located in the Upper East Side and awarded with a myriad medals and distinctions, instantly confirmed upon my walking through her door that I was bi-polar and had to be put on medication immediately. Not that I ever evidenced any of the symptoms associated with bipolarism, e.g., severe mood swings, penchant for outlandish behavior, etc.

I was prescribed Depakote and Klonopin. No other measures were taken by the psychiatrist; she believed that medication would resolve my issues unilaterally.

Depakote is one evil-ass drug; it effectively takes away your personality and replaces it with some bizzaro who's not really you. My friends and family became really concerned, constantly asking "Are you ok?", and "What happened to the old DdR?" I felt like a translucent curtain was put over my perception of the world.

After a few months I realized that Depakote wasn't for me (Klonopin is extremely effective, however, for countering severe panic attacks, from which I was also suffering). Upon informing my psychiatrist that I wanted off Depakote, she replied "Your condition is chronic and therefore you must remain permanently on Depakote". I got up, told her I'm going off immediately, and left her office, never stepping a foot in there again.

Realizing that drugs aren't going to solve my problems, I started listening to my therapist more. Obviously I was going to have to have my Ego face some pretty ugly facts and start changing my life. The first thing that really helped was performing strenuous exercise, 30 minutes at a time, 3x per week. That zapped my depression within a month. More sleep was also crucial, so I started sleeping in more, not giving a shit about work. I decided that living in NYC and working at my employer made life almost unbearable, so I found a new job in Germany (always loved the country and speak fluent German) and moved there. I realized I needed to learn Game to find and keep an attractive woman at my side.

Long story short: my life wasn't going the way I liked, so, like most other dumb Americans, I resorted to drugs to take away the pain, rather than making the difficult changes. But there is no shortcut for this type of thing; your brain is clearly telling you that something is very wrong and that you need to change. That's way more difficult than taking drugs, but the results are clearly so much better (I'm extremely happy, family/friend situation is more stable, work is much better, and I found an incredible woman) that it still amazes me that most people don't make the difficult choices. But, then again, I increasingly find that most people are just plain stupid.

I'm a fan of your blog and do value the food advice from you, Weston Price, etc. However, I've been on ever-shifting diets over the years, and it didn't really make much of a difference to my mood. The human body is an amazing machine that can function properly even with vastly different inputs, e.g., all fish-based diet like the Inuit, most grain-based diet like the Asians, etc.

Changing your life, and perhaps your outcome, rejecting the nonsense that you've been inculcated with all your life (and which is now causing severe cognitive dissonance) caused much stronger changes in my mental well-being than supplementing with krill oil or switching to grass-fed butter.

"Depakote is one evil-ass drug; it effectively takes away your personality and replaces it with some bizzaro who's not really you."

I wonder if that's what they started feeding this one girl I used to tutor. She was hyperactive in 8th grade, but nothing that I found unfamiliar from being her age. She was a bit moody, but again who isn't at that age. They must have diagnosed her as bipolar.

When she showed up to the tutoring center at the start of 9th grade, she was a total zombie. Not lost in thought or pensive or anything like that -- just staring out of dead eyes, lethargic, and numbed out.

That was my first wake-up call to how severely the helicopter parents are drugging up the Millennial generation. She came from an affluent white family, too, not a ghetto hell-raiser who was drugged in order to pacify them through socially acceptable means.

How can so many mothers and fathers adulterate the minds of their own children so callously? It really gives the lie to all this "family values" revolution bullshit. Lock your kid indoors all day, every day, and drug them up on the occasions where they have to leave the house for a period of time.

"How can so many mothers and fathers adulterate the minds of their own children so callously? It really gives the lie to all this "family values" revolution bullshit. Lock your kid indoors all day, every day, and drug them up on the occasions where they have to leave the house for a period of time."

Same reason that parents will have their kids zone out all day watching Disney shows or play with an iPad at the restaurant: the parents are trying to mitigate the downsides of having children, e.g., hissy fits, child rapists, etc. But are the measures more counterproductive than the increased risks? What I mean is: just shoving an iPad in front of a kid in order that she/he behaves at a restaurant takes away a valuable lesson on how that child should behave in public. Letting a kid play inside deprives him/her from the joy of nature and discovering new places/things, from social interaction with neighbors, from having the immune system challenged, etc.

Putting your kid on Depakote or Adderall is akin to child abuse, as you're suprressing the natural inclinations of a child to have fun, be spontaneous, be curious, etc. Let him/her go outside unsupervised, not take his/her cell phone everywhere, be cut off from cable/internet/video games, and lead a constructive life. If they get out of line, drop the hammer on them.

The above advice is what I will follow once I have kids. I do realize, however, that society severely condemns letting your child (even above the age of 8) outside unsupervised, or be unruly in class. It'll be an uphill battle, but the alternative, helicopter parenting with iPads/iPhones/Depakote/Adderall as additional ground support, is terrifying.

My brother was stationed in Wiesbaden for a year or so. I was surprised at the time that he really liked it, as he's the most Scotch-Irish of me and my brothers, and I'd thought of Germany as primarily Nordic, obsessed with orderliness, OCD, etc. But the south and west seems more in tune with Scotland than Sweden.

I've been kicking around a post idea about "how Celtic is Germany," contrasting the southern/western part (more Celtic) to the northern/eastern part (more Nordic-Baltic-Slavic). Some of the similarities are probably just convergent evolution among hillbilly regions, but I wonder how well the Celts who inhabited the area managed to stay put.

The waves of invaders wanted the arable land in the European Plain, in the northern and eastern part of Germany -- not the hills or mountains where you can't grow very much, and where you'd have to displace vengeful mountain men to boot.

Changing your life, and perhaps your outcome, rejecting the nonsense that you've been inculcated with all your life (and which is now causing severe cognitive dissonance) caused much stronger changes in my mental well-being than supplementing with krill oil or switching to grass-fed butter.

Absolutely agree DdR...I've always maintained that diet is only one part of attaining health and well being.

That being said, a lifetime of eating the S.A.D. most certainly does play a role in the overall trajectory of yours (and anyone else's) depression episode.

Also consider that you did take mind/hormone altering pharmaceuticals for a period of time.

No matter how good you eat after deciding to change your diet, it will still take an indeterminate period of time to recover (everyone will have different variables that would effect recovery time) and get your system working the way it's supposed to.

Make no mistake though, I get where you're coming from.

I've been there too, my friend. Except, instead of going to the Doctor's for a scrip, I self medicated by abusing alcohol and other substances.

Frankly, I'm quite surprised in hindsight that I've ended up where I'm at, in which I'm able to enjoy moderate consumption of alcohol on a regular basis, when I spent years as a hardcore, binge drunkard.

I also believe that eating a nutrient dense diet for a number of years has played a role in my not becoming a self-destructive addict, despite engaging in a pattern of abusive and compulsive use for years.

There was a girl I used to work with whose personality changed completely when she went on some antidepressant (don't remember which one it was). She used to be a workaholic bitch who complained about everything. After going on the drug she was flamboyant and silly to the point of nausea. She seemed really happy with the change so I guess it worked out alright for her but I guess I just wanted to mention it in support of DdR's assertion of how much these drugs can change a person. It may be that there were ways her mood could have been improved other than chemically turning her into sunshine bizarro girl.

It's funny you mention similarities between Scots and Southwestern Germans since those are the respective backgrounds of my parents. You would think they would have little in common but they seem to get along pretty well.

I've been kicking around a post idea about "how Celtic is Germany," contrasting the southern/western part (more Celtic) to the northern/eastern part (more Nordic-Baltic-Slavic). Some of the similarities are probably just convergent evolution among hillbilly regions, but I wonder how well the Celts who inhabited the area managed to stay put.

Swiss Germans and Austrians would be good to check, since international personality and other differences tend to be easier to locate than intranational ones, and Swiss Germans and Austrians are basically south Germans from hilly country (?).

In terms of relatedness across Europe, you know its basically isolation by distance, but they may have retained some traits. With low levels of interbreeding, some neutral or selected for trait could persist, while the general structure ends up looking like isolation by distance.

The waves of invaders wanted the arable land in the European Plain, in the northern and eastern part of Germany -- not the hills or mountains where you can't grow very much, and where you'd have to displace vengeful mountain men to boot.

Dienekes Pontikos has a theory where the Indo Europeans were from the Caucasus mountains, and their expansion was driven by advances in metallurgy technology.

These Indo Europeans may have colonized the mountains and hills of Europe more strongly, and left the plains to Mediterranean (?) agriculturalists in the case of Southern Europe, or relatively empty in Northern Europe. Nice and empty ready for a milk drinking cattle agriculturalist expansion.

Not sure if this has much to do with Celtic versus German versus Slavic languages though!